What really happened ....11 september

[dpt]

Quote from man:

could that at least be partly due to the fact that this was not a
discussion between experts but a general presentation to a
broadly diversified audience?

Quite possible, yes.

But his paper on the subject has never
been submitted to a peer-reviewed journal as far
as I know, and the copies available on the web are
not much more impressive than what's in the presentation.

 

[Bitstream]

dpt, i think u are making a lot of unprovable assumptions but i appreciate your efforts to debate the events while not trowing insults left and right.
u surely show a lot more intelligence than many here.

here's a link i told u about, prof jones also partecipated in this study. it is pretty comprehensive if u ask me.

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/index.html#vacuous

 

[man]

Quote from dpt:

But both 1 and 2 were struck by airliners and had fires, right?

well, right. but now consider we are ten minutes after the
second attack and you have all information about the construction
that you have now, would you forecast a footprint collapse of the
towers within an hour and seven hours later the same with 7?

i guess you would give it maybe a 50:50. my point is that this adds
up to only 12.5% for all three. and this is the only case i am trying
to make: there is good reason for "the public" to think about it
and therefore an open debate with people of three sides, the
official, the conspiracists and some independent like yourself
should be broadcasted live on all stations interested (which would
be ... some, i'd guess). for a non-expert like myself it is impossible
to validate the claims, and the expertise of the claimers does not
help either, if there are well-trained academics on both sides.

 

[Bitstream]

dpt, ignore previous link...read this, it's more recent, with more analysis:


http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/index.html#vacuous

 

[Bitstream]

Quote from dpt:

No. Not at all. These buildings were unique in design. They're not
easily comparable to other steel frame buildings. The weight was borne in the towers both by
the core and by the perimeter tube columns: neither group was sufficient on its
own to support the buildings. They were about 95% empty space. If either core or exterior or
about half of all the columns on one floor failed,
that floor would give way. That much was known
when they were built, I think.

this is an assumption of yours. those building were very very tough. infact strong enough to withstand continuous hurricane winds, earthquakes and multiple boeing 707 crashes. and i think u are wrong to say the core was not enough in itself to support the building...infact the core is much more stronger than nits make it up to be...those 47 massive steel columns were not free standing as nist stated but connected by trusses and they should have survived the fall. that's what should be left of the towers after the collapse anyways as shown in one of the models designed by nist itself. there's also no reason to believe the fire alone was hot, strong and widespread enough to weaken half the core or the columns...infact evidence suggests there were only a couple of fires that firemen thought were easy to extinguish with just a couple of lines.

Not necessarily. It would depend on the adequacy of the insulation of
the support members in buildings, and again the nature of loading
and temperatures that occurred in those fires.

again, there's no evidence insulation was not adequate.

That's not at all clear. In those other buildings the frame presumably
remained well enough insulated. There were no airliner crashes in those
buildings, apart from the one into the Empire State building, and that
was a much smaller, slower plane in a building with a lot of exterior
masonry which the towers lacked.

the crash was not what cause the collapse according to nist/fema..infact it was not even partly responsible for it.

It's widely suggested that the fuel burned probably no more than 15-20
minutes. But the fires clearly remained burning for at least 1hr and thus
could have kept the steel at high temperature for some time, although not
perhaps as high as 550 C. But 550 C could have been reached initially.
That initial jolt might just start the failure process.

even if that was the case, and according to firemen it was just a couple of pockets of fire small enough to be controlled by a couple of lines, heat couldn't be concentrated since steel disperses heat and the construction and design of the column facilitated the process.

I've suggested that the timescale to failure is not easy to predict, but is a
very complicated question, one that depends on the precise way in which the
steel deforms under stress and temperature, and precisely how and when the
steel was heated.

agreed, problem is tho that not only melted steel was found but also evaporated steel and massive amount of sulfur which presence was deemed weird and unexplainable by nist....and we know in what cases steel evaporates; certainly not due to fire.

Yes. The office materials provided, certainly, a lot more but lower
temperature flame.



I think it depends on what you mean by weaker here.

It seemed pretty clear to me from about one or two days after I had seen the
collapse, that a possible failure mechanism was simply that one story near the
level where the planes hit had failed completely, and that the parts of the
buildings above then fell through one story, impacting onto the parts below. I
and some of my friends made a ballpark calculation of what would happen in
this case, within a day or two of 9/11.

yes and it is much easier to explain it out by the use of explosives. infact it is perfectly fitting.

It's not too hard to estimate what the dynamic stress would be produced on the
lower part of the building if that ever happened, and it's very easy to see
that it is far in excess of what the building was designed to take. It
was designed to be strong enough to support its static weight and a bit more,
and that's all.

hmm...would not be hard? dont think it is a straight case as u make it up to be.

So the structure it seems to me could have been about as strong as it was
expected (was designed) to be, and still have failed, if something like half
of the supporting beams were cut on any one floor.

So it was weak enough to fail in this manner. Now I frankly don't know
whether this was understood before 9/11. But I think there are no steel frame
buildings that possibly could survive an event in which a sufficiently large
part of the top of the building fell onto the bottom.

that's another assumption.

In addition, the towers were, I believe, designed to last for long enough in
an ordinary fire that they could be evacuated. Any treatment of fire
depended on the assumption, of course, that the insulation on the beams would
remain intact in a fire, and that there would be no major structural damage
pre-existing at the time of the fire.

It is not at all clear that anything other than impact damage was considered
in the case where an airliner struck one of the towers, and there is no
existing documentation of what the assumptions were in this study or
of what actual damage the impact would have done.

as i said the towers were built to withstand multiple jet airliners crashes and continuous battering of hurricane winds. not sure my self about fire and heat, but we have an example with madrid bldg that survived intact a fierce fire spreading throughout the whole structure/floors and lasting for an entire day...maybe even more.

So the conditions of no more than minor structural damage and intact fire
insulation, as it seems to me, could well have been violated in the collapse
of towers 1 and 2, due to the impact damage caused over several stories,
combined with the fires.

the impact damage has nothing to do with the weakening of the towers and subsequent collapse according to nist.

But both 1 and 2 were struck by airliners and had fires, right?

So these two occurrences are not so unlikely, if you can believe
the general collapse scenario.

And while building 7 was not struck by an airliner, it evidently did had
extensive fires, and it evidently was struck by falling debris from building
1. There is quite a bit of visible damage in the photos, and there is
considerable testimony from the firefighters that suggests the damage was much
more extensive than what is already visible.

Thus I suspect that a similar basic failure mechanism was operating there
... only it must have been one of the lower floors that suffered sufficient
structural and fire damage to give way.

So it doesn't seem all that unlikely to me.

Cheers! And thanks for your response.

the problem here is the nature of the collapse; sudden and sharing all the element of a controlled demolition. what int boils down to is that it can be very easily explained by cutter charges and other explosives present in the building and extremely difficult if not impossible to attribute it to a simple fire.

 

[MajorUrsa]

Quote from Bitstream:
the problem here is the nature of the collapse; sudden and sharing all the element of a controlled demolition. what int boils down to is that it can be very easily explained by cutter charges and other explosives present in the building and extremely difficult if not impossible to attribute it to a simple fire.

Excellent analysis Bitstream. Together with man's very legit questioning of the coincidence of all 3 buildings going down, in almost the same way, I think Occam's razor is slowly reducing the question to that of motive alone; that something fishy was going on is almost a fact.

As man repeatedly stated, it is now a question of the openly answering the general public about some very nagging questions. The fact that these questions are not answered after 5 years already is in itself almost proof of a cover-up. Of course, if it was a false-flag op it will backfire eventually. But trying to cover up the simplest of issues could backfire much sooner and much harder.
I think the US will not be healthy and energetic again untill these issues are solved and answered for.

Ursa..

 

[man]

good discussion. thanks to both of you.

 

[man]

Quote from MajorUrsa:


I think the US will not be healthy and energetic again untill these issues are solved and answered for.

while i doubt a public hearing will shut down all critics it least
shows open minds on side of the government towards public
concern, which by itself will be inspiring. i mean i for myself
would probably make my decision what to think during such
a hearing. and so would majority of current doubters ... IMO

 

[man]

and BTW a second investigation will not solve the issue at all,
just transfer it. this is now about real public debate, live with
no back door ... like a courtroom. and if you think this is nonsense
you say that the whole legal system is ... since it works in exactly
this way.

 

[Haroki]

Quote from Bitstream:

this is an assumption of yours. those building were very very tough. infact strong enough to withstand continuous hurricane winds, earthquakes and multiple boeing 707 crashes.

Multiple crashes? All on the same day? nope, seems to be a misleading statement here, trying to back up the claim about how " very, very, tough" those buildings were. How dishonest Bit. And they take those strong winds with ALL of the exterior columns intact too. Think about the structural support they add, and if they were damaged, do you think they would resist tose kinds of winds?

and i think u are wrong to say the core was not enough in itself to support the building...infact the core is much more stronger than nits make it up to be...those 47 massive steel columns were not free standing as nist stated but connected by trusses and they should have survived the fall. that's what should be left of the towers after the collapse anyways as shown in one of the models designed by nist itself.

Video evidence shows that as the towers initiated their collapse, they tilted slightly - about 10 degrees I believe - and that would be enough to laterally load the core columns. Note laterally loaded - they weren't designed to take that kind of a lateral load. Also, are you saying that NIST got it wrong regarding how strong the core columns were? Who's to say that you're right, if they got it wrong?

there's also no reason to believe the fire alone was hot, strong and widespread enough to weaken half the core or the columns...infact evidence suggests there were only a couple of fires that firemen thought were easy to extinguish with just a couple of lines.

You're qouting Chief Palmer here - now read the REAL story and the deception that the Cters have made...

http://www.debunking911.com/fire.htm

The glaringly obvious logical problems with using Orio Palmers quote are:

Orio Palmer was in the South Staircase (Adam) on the South Tower which was not damaged because of large, heavily constructed elevator equipment which protected it.

It’s not unreasonable to expect two small fires on a floor where only a wing tip entered. What was above those floors is the question not answered by the fireman’s quote.

The 78th floor was a sky lobby which didn’t have much office furniture to catch fire. If there were two small fires on the 78th floor where just a wing tip entered, what must the 81st floor be like where the nose of the aircraft hit?

If there were small fires on the 78th floor just before collapse, does that mean the 78th floor never had larger fires?

If he was in the staircase which is in the core, how would he know the perimeter columns were about to get pulled in?

If he did see the building was about to collapse, why would they predict he would get on the radio instead of take immediate action to save his life?

Why do they think the visibility from the smoke of two small fires were such that he could see to the four corners of the building?

Why are they using this quote as a ruler by which to measure the whole building?

This quote was obviously chosen to give the reader the impression that there were only small fires throughout the event. But what is telling is the characterization of the quote. The writer says it “contradicts the official explanation”.

Below is a photo gallery which shows the progression of fire, bowing of perimeter columns and sagging trusses. It also shows why there was little fire on the 78th floor.





again, there's no evidence insulation was not adequate.

Right - nobody inspected the insulation on the trusses AFTER the plane crashed into it. But it has been assumed that a 300,000 lbaircraft traveling at over 400 mph would do some damage. Not so hard to imagine, is it?




[/B]

the crash was not what cause the collapse according to nist/fema..infact it was not even partly responsible for it.

Right again - but I think what dpt was referring to is that the plane knocked off the insulation, not causing the collapse...




even if that was the case, and according to firemen it was just a couple of pockets of fire small enough to be controlled by a couple of lines,

Wnt over this already.....

heat couldn't be concentrated since steel disperses heat and the construction and design of the column facilitated the process.

Now YOU are making assumptions.....






[/B]

agreed, problem is tho that not only melted steel was found

I don't remember seeing any melted steel. I DO remember seeing red hot steel being pulled from underground by an excavator.Read this - Iron burns......

http://www.debunking911.com/ironburns.htm

but also evaporated steel

C'mon now, how would one find EVAPORATED steel... LMAO

and massive amount of sulfur which presence was deemed weird and unexplainable by nist

Look up drywall, and see what it's made from - Calcium Sulfate... Sulfate is SO4- You get it? Sulfur and Oxygen. ANd the sulfur is unexplainable by NIST, or they simply didn't include it in their investigation, since they were only concerned with the events that led up to the collapse.

....and we know in what cases steel evaporates; certainly not due to fire.

Right.



[/B]

yes and it is much easier to explain it out by the use of explosives. infact it is perfectly fitting.

Yes it is, but show me the evidence, not your assumptions...

[/B]

hmm...would not be hard? dont think it is a straight case as u make it up to be.

ANd I think that a lot of structural engineers DO make it out to be a simple straight case....

[/B]

that's another assumption.

Yes, but a logical one....

[/B]

as i said the towers were built to withstand multiple jet airliners crashes and continuous battering of hurricane winds. not sure my self about fire and heat, but we have an example with madrid bldg that survived intact a fierce fire spreading throughout the whole structure/floors and lasting for an entire day...maybe even more.

About Madrid-

http://www.debunking911.com/madrid.htm

This fire is one of the fires Conspiracy theorist like to point to when talking about high raise office fires. This fire lasted 26 hours. But what they don't tell you is that the first collapse happened only 1 hour and 30 minutes after the fire began. But why didn't the building fall completely? It was on fire for 26 hours. The answer is very simple. The building were constructed very differently than the WTC. Reinforced concrete was used in the core and under the 17th floor. Below are detailed descriptions of how the Madrid tower was constructed and the reason for it not collapsing...

read on.....


[/B]

the impact damage has nothing to do with the weakening of the towers and subsequent collapse according to nist.

Right, the planes knocked off the fireproofing - but I've already responded to this

[/B]


the problem here is the nature of the collapse; sudden and sharing all the element of a controlled demolition. what int boils down to is that it can be very easily explained by cutter charges and other explosives present in the building and extremely difficult if not impossible to attribute it to a simple fire. [/B]

Again - simple fire? Want to read the firemen's opinion of the fires in 7?

"The most important operational decision to be made that afternoon was the collapse (Of the WTC towers) had damaged 7 World Trade Center, which is about a 50 story building, at Vesey between West Broadway and Washington Street. It had very heavy fire on many floors and I ordered the evacuation of an area sufficient around to protect our members, so we had to give up some rescue operations that were going on at the time and back the people away far enough so that if 7 World Trade did collapse, we [wouldn't] lose any more people. We continued to operate on what we could from that distance and approximately an hour and a half after that order was [given], at 5:30 in the afternoon, World Trade Center collapsed completely" - Daniel Nigro, Chief of Department

That's just one man. There's lots more....

http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm